I suppose it was natural I should be a one-off! Bit surprised at you Matt as a young man full of ideas ......... in fact your being such a definite NO has made me wonder whether I might yet again be wrong, but I did say YES to a lot of things.
92 is just a historic number. 46 is too many games. There are too many ill-attended night matches. The three lower divisions are a test of stamina and resilience, not skill.There is too much travelling (that clubs can't afford) .... in the National League Torquay yesterday had the choice between an over-night stay or a coach. The players drove to a hotel near their the match!
I used to think 5 divisions of 20 was the answer, BUT there are always at least 2 sides not good enough for the Premier and mostly the Championship splits into those in the running and the rest, SO my proposal would be to reduce the Premiership to 18 teams (as they say they play too much). I'd do the same with the Championship and with the remaining 64 clubs I'd set up 4 Challenger Conferences of equal status, roughly regional.
From our point of view that would give us 30 league games a season. That would leave room for a new Challenger Trophy instead of Checkatrade. That would have a group stage and it could be innovative. Why not four points for a win, one for a draw and a bonus point for every goal a team scores over one? Exciting for fans and the right place to experiment with rule innovations. And a genuine Trophy at the end the end of it.
The FA Cup - no, we shouldn't scrap replays because we could bring a Chelsea back to our place, but we need to re-jig. The final Qualifying round brings in the 24 National teams, Round One has the excitement of League Clubs coming in .... the Third Round has the top clubs ...... so why do we let the competition becalm in The Second Round. Second Round day is a nothing-day, and it needs to maintain the Cup's ooomph. I'd re-jig it so The Championship teams come into the second round, enlivening that round and the Third Round would still see the entry of the Giants.
As for 8 new clubs we don't really need Bromleys, Suttons and Solihull Moors except by promotion if they can make it ........ but we do need to develop young players stranded in Academies with no hope of a first team game. All that Sky money needs to go somewhere more productive than the deep pockets of the foreign agents of second-rate players. Why not let that money create the equivalent of a Real Madrid B or two run as separate clubs? And it might help to end the farce of top clubs fielding weakened sides they think still capable of beating the likes of Chesterfield in cup competitions. If we drew Man Utd in the Cup we would have the excitement and magic of actually playing them rather than their understudies. I reckon there's a lot to gain from change and it's not as if the external evidence of the success of English football goes any further than finance. Once we are out on the field we can't beat Feyenoord or Iceland.
My only worry is that change might, like the creation of the Premiership, be seen as the answer for years and years to come. It seems to me when we watch our international teams we find they are unable to adapt to new situations on the field. They try the same things over and over. All they are doing is mirroring our national approach to the game, we need to welcome change, repond to it and keep both responding and innovating. Yeah I know I'm a lone voice!
And as for a winter break - we don't get winter now. Okay Accrington and Carlisle got flooded, but Newbury got flooded on Friday.
92 is just a historic number. 46 is too many games. There are too many ill-attended night matches. The three lower divisions are a test of stamina and resilience, not skill.There is too much travelling (that clubs can't afford) .... in the National League Torquay yesterday had the choice between an over-night stay or a coach. The players drove to a hotel near their the match!
I used to think 5 divisions of 20 was the answer, BUT there are always at least 2 sides not good enough for the Premier and mostly the Championship splits into those in the running and the rest, SO my proposal would be to reduce the Premiership to 18 teams (as they say they play too much). I'd do the same with the Championship and with the remaining 64 clubs I'd set up 4 Challenger Conferences of equal status, roughly regional.
From our point of view that would give us 30 league games a season. That would leave room for a new Challenger Trophy instead of Checkatrade. That would have a group stage and it could be innovative. Why not four points for a win, one for a draw and a bonus point for every goal a team scores over one? Exciting for fans and the right place to experiment with rule innovations. And a genuine Trophy at the end the end of it.
The FA Cup - no, we shouldn't scrap replays because we could bring a Chelsea back to our place, but we need to re-jig. The final Qualifying round brings in the 24 National teams, Round One has the excitement of League Clubs coming in .... the Third Round has the top clubs ...... so why do we let the competition becalm in The Second Round. Second Round day is a nothing-day, and it needs to maintain the Cup's ooomph. I'd re-jig it so The Championship teams come into the second round, enlivening that round and the Third Round would still see the entry of the Giants.
As for 8 new clubs we don't really need Bromleys, Suttons and Solihull Moors except by promotion if they can make it ........ but we do need to develop young players stranded in Academies with no hope of a first team game. All that Sky money needs to go somewhere more productive than the deep pockets of the foreign agents of second-rate players. Why not let that money create the equivalent of a Real Madrid B or two run as separate clubs? And it might help to end the farce of top clubs fielding weakened sides they think still capable of beating the likes of Chesterfield in cup competitions. If we drew Man Utd in the Cup we would have the excitement and magic of actually playing them rather than their understudies. I reckon there's a lot to gain from change and it's not as if the external evidence of the success of English football goes any further than finance. Once we are out on the field we can't beat Feyenoord or Iceland.
My only worry is that change might, like the creation of the Premiership, be seen as the answer for years and years to come. It seems to me when we watch our international teams we find they are unable to adapt to new situations on the field. They try the same things over and over. All they are doing is mirroring our national approach to the game, we need to welcome change, repond to it and keep both responding and innovating. Yeah I know I'm a lone voice!
And as for a winter break - we don't get winter now. Okay Accrington and Carlisle got flooded, but Newbury got flooded on Friday.